Abstract
This paper develops a philosophical encounter between research on artificial intelligence and scholarship on minimalism, materiality, phenomenology, and expression. Its purpose is neither to identify an invariant mechanism underlying these domains nor to use computational models as explanations of aesthetic experience. Instead, it investigates intersecting and sometimes incompatible accounts of how distinctions become available, how relations acquire significance, and how organizations of understanding change. Across thirteen selected publications, it differentiates informational compression from disentanglement and invariance; computational selection from the constitution of relevance; represented content from operational capacity; recurrence from transformation; and causal explanation from semantic, normative, and interpersonal understanding. Minimalism is developed as a philosophical practice of selectively modifying the dependencies through which a field becomes intelligible. A qualified holographic model then describes inquiry through multiple, nonexhaustive projections, without presuming a recoverable totality behind them. Representational interference is distinguished from interpretive disturbance and transformative reorganization. The paper proposes a research program concerned with transformations of fields through constrained projection and interference, while retaining conceptual provenance, evidential limits, and unresolved disagreements. Understanding emerges as a plurality of achievements whose relationships require investigation rather than guaranteed reconciliation.
Keywords: abstraction; minimalism; representation learning; phenomenology; in-context learning; materiality; conceptual capacity; framing; interference; epistemological pluralism
1. Introduction: Abstraction as a Problem of Organization
Abstraction is frequently described as a movement away from particularity toward a simpler or more general form. Such a description conceals several operations whose consequences differ substantially. Suppressing variation, distinguishing previously entangled factors, sharing representational resources, establishing contextual relations, and suspending an inherited assumption can each be called abstraction. Yet they do not necessarily preserve the same things, answer the same questions, or improve understanding in the same sense. A representation may become more economical while becoming harder to interpret. An explanation may become more explicit while becoming less concise. An encounter may become more meaningful without producing a more effective predictor.
The present inquiry begins from these divergences. It brings selected research in artificial intelligence into conversation with philosophical scholarship associated with minimalism and monochromatic practices. The comparison concerns the organization of intelligibility: the conditions under which differences become accessible, relations become consequential, patterns persist, and meanings become answerable to criticism. The central problem is therefore not whether artificial intelligence resembles minimalist art. It is how their distinct accounts of reduction, relation, temporality, and meaning can expose limitations in one another without forfeiting their own standards of explanation.
The organizing proposal is that minimalist philosophy can investigate interventions into an organization of significance. Under this interpretation, reduction is a procedure whose consequences must be discovered. It might clarify an indispensable dependency, shift attention toward an excluded relation, or remove precisely what was needed to recognize an error. Nothing in the procedure guarantees an encounter with purity, immediacy, or an ultimate ground. Its philosophical importance lies in making the consequences of determination available to inquiry.
This proposal remains deliberately plural. Computational, phenomenological, materialist, historical, and normative explanations do not become commensurable merely because each concerns relations. Their objects, methods, and criteria of adequacy differ. The paper therefore develops a connected argument without treating its sources as fragments of a single doctrine. Its contribution is an account of how these differences can become intellectually productive: not through their elimination, but through carefully specified transformations between explanatory settings.
2. Corpus, Method, and Evidential Boundaries
The corpus comprises six AI publications—Bengio, Courville, and Vincent (2013); Vaswani et al. (2017); Saxe et al. (2018); Elhage et al. (2022); Olsson et al. (2022); and Akyürek et al. (2023)—and six publications concerning minimalism and related philosophical problems—Kim Yisoon (2010), Fielding (2011), Dahl (2012), Kwon (2014), Boardman (2019), and Kim Jung Hee (2020). Van Sorge (2025) supplies a supplementary account of framing. This is a purposive conceptual corpus, not a systematic review of either discipline or a survey of the current state of AI.
The method has three levels. First, it reconstructs distinctions attributable to the selected publications. Second, it compares the explanatory work those distinctions perform. Third, it develops philosophical proposals prompted by their encounter. These levels must remain identifiable: a result about a trained computational system does not establish a claim about embodied experience, and a philosophical interpretation does not demonstrate an internal algorithm.
The supplied research notes distinguish full-text readings from abstract-based readings. Fielding, Kim Yisoon, Kwon, and Kim Jung Hee are retained here within the limits of accessible abstracts. Publication records and accessible source texts were checked in preparing this paper; those checks do not convert every source into a newly completed full-text reading. The fuller indexed abstract of Kim Jung Hee’s article names phenomenological fields, gesture, and infinity as comparative themes. It supports identifying those themes and the project’s cross-cultural intention, but not reconstructing its detailed arguments. Dahl is cited as 2012, following the journal’s publication record. Elhage and Olsson are cited as research preprints rather than conventional peer-reviewed journal articles.
The distinction between reconstruction and extension is especially important for the holographic proposal developed below. None of the selected studies demonstrates a universal holographic mechanism of thought or creativity. The proposal is a philosophical model for organizing inquiry, and its adequacy depends on the distinctions it enables and the cases through which it can be tested.
3. Reduction, Disentanglement, and the Location of Economy
Bengio, Courville, and Vincent (2013) locate a central problem of learning in the organization of representation. Distributed features support combinatorial reuse; hierarchical transformations support abstraction. Their discussion distinguishes making explanatory factors separately accessible from making a representation insensitive to selected variations. Smoothness, sparsity, manifolds, and shared explanatory factors enter as inductive assumptions. These distinctions prevent abstraction from being identified with indiscriminate deletion: what counts as irrelevant depends on the demands placed upon a representation.
The philosophical consequence proposed here is that reduction must be specified by its operation and its destination. A reduction of variability is not automatically a reduction of complexity, and neither is necessarily an increase in intelligibility. Consider a description that treats several differences as irrelevant. It may become more stable across circumstances, yet less capable of answering a question for which one of those differences matters. Its success is relational: it belongs to a pairing of organization and purpose, not to the description considered alone.
Elhage et al. (2022) add a different complication. Their toy models demonstrate that sparse features can occupy nonorthogonal directions, permitting more features than available dimensions at the cost of interference. Nonlinear filtering makes this arrangement workable in the studied settings. Feature importance and sparsity influence its geometry, including transitions between arrangements. Polysemantic neurons consequently need not correspond to single concepts, and the meaning of an individual coordinate depends on the representational organization. These findings concern economy and interpretability; they do not establish a theory of creativity.
Saxe et al. (2018), meanwhile, challenge the universal necessity of the proposed fitting-then-compression trajectory in deep learning. Observed information behavior depends on activation functions and estimation choices, including binning and noise assumptions. Generalization need not require the contested compression phase, and selective loss of task-irrelevant information need not entail an overall decrease in retained information. Their criticism concerns particular explanatory claims, rather than every possible role for compression.
Taken together, these distinctions invite an inquiry into where economy occurs. A compact statement can rely on extensive tacit knowledge. A short procedure can depend on a complex infrastructure. A small vocabulary can shift interpretive work onto its reader. Simplicity at one level may therefore be a redistribution of complexity across levels. Calling an account economical without specifying its dependencies leaves the principal philosophical issue unresolved.
Minimality should accordingly be assessed through the work a configuration requires and permits. One account may privilege ease of execution, another ease of interpretation, another preservation of alternatives. These goals can conflict. An economical representation may leave its distinctions implicit; an intelligible explanation may need to articulate them at length. There is no contradiction in a longer account being clearer, or in a shorter account supporting more possibilities than it explicitly names.
Two orientations of minimalist philosophy follow. One seeks economy of organization: fewer commitments, more reusable relations, less explicit differentiation. The other seeks disclosure of dependencies: a more articulate understanding of what the apparent economy presupposes. The first may succeed by concealing complexity within a working arrangement; the second may succeed by rendering that complexity visible. Their conflict is productive because it prevents simplicity from becoming its own criterion of truth.
4. Relational Representation and the Constitution of Relevance
Vaswani et al. (2017) provide a precise computational account of contextual processing. Query–key compatibility governs the aggregation of value information, while multiple heads use learned projections into different representational subspaces. Positional information supports sequence order; feed-forward transformations and residual pathways perform functions distinct from attention. Relations formed at one stage become inputs to subsequent computation. Multi-head attention offers differentiated channels, but neither guarantees their interpretability nor establishes that they are conscious perspectives.
Fielding’s (2011) abstract addresses a different problem: how situated, embodied perceptions contribute to shared reality. Through Arendt and Merleau-Ponty, she considers the coexistence of incompossible perceptions and the danger that their integration conceals their plurality. An ethics restricted to a single fixed perspective loses responsiveness to embodied relations. This concerns situated experience and ethical commonality, not numerical aggregation.
The comparison becomes useful when it distinguishes selecting within an available field from helping constitute the field of relevance. Selection presupposes available terms and a way to differentiate them. Constitution concerns the organization through which something becomes recognizable as a term, a relation, an anomaly, or a reason. These are analytically distinct operations even when a concrete practice interweaves them.
A research question illustrates the difference. Asking which variables predict an event organizes information into predictors, outcomes, and errors. Asking whose experience the description excludes organizes the inquiry around testimony, authority, and omission. Asking how the categories acquired legitimacy introduces institutions and historical transmission. The same body of materials may enter all three inquiries, yet it does not retain an identical explanatory role in each.
A multidimensional synthesis must therefore preserve organizations of relevance, rather than merely collect answers. If every interpretation is translated immediately into the categories of one preferred method, plurality survives only as a list of inputs. The governing organization remains unchanged. Genuine comparison requires making visible what each approach treats as a successful explanation and what it cannot recognize under those terms.
Van Sorge (2025) provides a complementary account of this issue through framing. Bringing Merleau-Ponty into relation with Derrida, she treats framing as embodied activity that establishes an inside and outside while implicating both. Visibility involves exclusion; an act of determination remains necessary without being fully secured in advance. Phenomenology and deconstruction correct limitations in one another rather than dissolving into a single method.
The philosophical extension is that a frame participates in the intelligibility it appears merely to delimit. It can make an inquiry possible while preventing certain questions from arising. This does not imply that frames are arbitrary. A frame can be criticized for inconsistency, evidential exclusion, or inability to address its stated problem. Its necessity does not entail immunity from revision. Minimalist inquiry becomes significant here when reducing a dominant organization makes its acts of exclusion newly detectable.
5. From Represented Content to Conceptual Capacity
Boardman’s (2019) new-materialist interpretation, developed through DeLanda, distinguishes properties from tendencies and capacities. Affect concerns the ability to affect and be affected, extending beyond human feeling. Intensive differences, instabilities, and encounters participate in morphogenesis; organization need not depend on living agency or an externally imposed template. Material processes unfold across scales and histories that human experience does not exhaust. Boardman thus challenges the sufficiency of an account centered on intention or phenomenological appearance.
Akyürek et al. (2023) investigate a more restricted kind of possibility. In linear-regression settings, transformers can construct context-dependent predictors without further updates to trained parameters. The authors provide constructions implementing learning procedures, compare trained behavior with estimation algorithms, and probe intermediate quantities. Depth, width, and noise affect observed behavior. Agreement with an algorithm’s outputs remains different from demonstrating its internal implementation; probe recoverability is likewise evidence requiring interpretation.
The proposed bridge between these works is a question, not an ontological equivalence: how should an inquiry distinguish a configuration’s present articulation from the operations it can support? A concept has a stated content, but it also has a capacity to change the organization of another problem. Defining “boundary” is one achievement. Showing how that concept reorganizes a discussion of identity, exclusion, emergence, or responsibility is another.
Conceptual capacity is relational. A concept does not possess every possible use independently of the setting in which it is introduced. Its consequences depend on neighboring concepts, available evidence, and the operations an inquiry permits. This does not make its content irrelevant. Content constrains legitimate use; use can disclose limitations in inherited content. The relationship is reciprocal without being circular in a merely self-confirming sense, because an application can fail to produce the distinctions it promised.
This account also distinguishes latent usefulness from demonstrated usefulness. Calling a concept generative is insufficient. One must show what it enables: a previously unavailable contrast, a better explanation, a changed criterion, or an intervention whose outcome can be assessed. A term that circulates across many domains may be rhetorically flexible without accomplishing this work.
Minimalist reduction can become an experimental philosophical procedure at this point. Temporarily suspend a familiar concept and examine what becomes difficult to say. Reintroduce it under altered relations and assess what becomes newly possible. The procedure does not claim that concepts behave like material substances or computational circuits. It treats subtraction and rearrangement as ways of investigating dependence. Its value lies in making the effects of conceptual organization explicit enough to challenge.
The remaining incompatibility is substantial. A material capacity need not depend on its availability to experience, whereas a phenomenological account asks how something becomes meaningful for an embodied subject. Neither question cancels the other. An adequate synthesis must retain the possibility that what operates exceeds what appears, while also retaining the irreducibility of the question of appearance itself.
6. Repetition, Temporal Organization, and the Conditions of Novelty
Olsson et al. (2022) identify induction circuits that use earlier token patterns to support later predictions. In the studied attention-only models, previous-token and induction heads compose a mechanism in which relational position matters. Their emergence coincides with a marked improvement in in-context learning. Ablations support causal claims in small attention-only models; evidence for broader generalization to larger models with multilayer perceptrons is less decisive. This asymmetry is essential to the interpretation.
Kwon’s (2014) abstract places repetitive action within a historically contested formation. Repetition receives interpretations of unity and transcendence, yet those interpretations coexist with cultural translation, institutional prestige, and market value. The article critically examines “Korean Modernism” as a hybrid construction. It should therefore not be cited as straightforward endorsement of repetition’s power to dissolve divisions between subject and materiality.
Dahl (2012) adds a distinction between homogeneous duration and temporality experienced as meaningful disclosure. His account shows how shared philosophical inheritances can support divergent descriptions of experience. Read together, these works make recurrence available to computational, historical, and experiential analysis without assigning it a universal significance.
Three levels should consequently be distinguished: what recurs, what operation is performed on it, and what organization persists between occurrences. A repeated element can enter a changed organization; a succession of different elements can preserve the same governing procedure. Novelty at one level does not entail transformation at another.
Consider a familiar concept used across a series of cases. Each application may introduce fresh examples while preserving the original categories. Alternatively, repeated application may make an unresolved discrepancy increasingly visible until the categories themselves require revision. In the first situation, variation populates a stable framework. In the second, recurrence changes the conditions under which the framework can continue to function. Neither outcome follows from repetition alone.
This distinction also clarifies persistence. Stability can be the achievement of ongoing operations rather than the absence of activity. Conversely, an intense proliferation of descriptions may leave the same exclusions intact. A philosophical investigation of temporal organization must therefore attend to dependencies and expectations, not simply to the number or apparent diversity of events.
Novelty is correspondingly plural. A result can be new within an established procedure; a procedure can be new while pursuing an unchanged objective; a criterion of relevance can change what counts as a result at all. These are different achievements. A fixed computational organization supporting context-dependent prediction offers one bounded example of variable procedure, but does not establish the historical or normative transformation of a practice.
For minimalist philosophy, repetition becomes neither proof of stagnation nor a privileged route to transcendence. It is a way to study when persistence consolidates identity, when recurrence reveals neglected difference, and when accumulated difficulty changes the procedure through which identity is recognized. The philosophical task is to specify the transition rather than presume its meaning.
7. Access, Measurement, and Reflexive Adequacy
The preceding distinctions require an inquiry into access itself. The supplied corpus makes this issue concrete through information estimation, interpretability probes, and framing. These methods operate differently, but each raises a question about whether the available description licenses the inference drawn from it. Saxe et al. (2018) and Akyürek et al. (2023) make this especially consequential for claims about learning and internal representation; van Sorge (2025) makes determination and exclusion explicit philosophical problems.
Three failures must be separated. A distinction may be absent from the phenomenon. It may be present but inaccessible to a particular method. Or it may be excluded by the question that organized the investigation. An unsuccessful measurement does not, by itself, decide among these possibilities. Nor does a successful interpretive redescription establish a causal mechanism.
This is not an invitation to unlimited skepticism. It is a demand for better diagnosis. If two researchers disagree, they may disagree about what occurs, about how it can be accessed, or about what would count as an adequate account. A debate that never distinguishes these levels can continue indefinitely because each participant treats a different failure as decisive.
Reflexive inquiry therefore alternates between describing a phenomenon and examining the operations that make the description possible. The second movement need not invalidate the first. It can delimit a claim, identify a missing comparison, or distinguish an observed association from an explanation. Rigor consists partly in preserving the route by which an assertion became warranted.
Reduction has an ambivalent role here. A stripped-down model can isolate a dependency that a richer setting obscures. Yet its simplification may also exclude the conditions under which the dependency ceases to matter. The decisive issue is whether the reduction’s limits travel with its conclusion. A toy model becomes misleading when its restricted result is silently promoted into a general ontology.
The same obligation applies to philosophical language. A concept cannot be vindicated merely by redescribing every possible outcome in its terms. An account of interference that calls confusion, disagreement, clarification, and invention equally generative becomes incapable of discrimination. Reflexivity must therefore include conditions under which a proposed extension would be rejected, narrowed, or replaced.
8. Mechanism, Expression, and Acknowledgment
Dahl’s (2012) discussion of ordinary language philosophy differentiates public criteria of meaning from a reduction of subjectivity to observable behavior. His contrasts between naturalistic and personalistic attitudes, and between knowledge and acknowledgment, concern the commitments involved in receiving expression. Expression is public without becoming fully controllable by its author, and subjectivity need not depend on an inaccessible private foundation.
This distinction blocks a premature conclusion in the AI–minimalism encounter. A causal account of expression does not by itself determine what responding to expression requires. Four questions remain separable: how an utterance was produced; what it means and implies; whether its claims are justified; and what response is owed to the person expressing it. Answers may constrain one another, but success in one domain does not settle the others.
An explanation of production might identify a reliable mechanism while remaining silent about justification. A semantic interpretation might clarify an implication without establishing its truth. An acknowledgment might recognize someone’s situation without claiming exhaustive knowledge of it. These distinctions prevent both computational reductionism and an interpretive exceptionalism that treats mechanisms as irrelevant.
Public meaning, on this account, introduces answerability. A claim can be misunderstood, disputed, corrected, or withdrawn. Its significance includes these possibilities of response, rather than merely an association between signs and outcomes. An account that compresses those relations into predictive success risks changing the question while claiming to have answered it.
This point is also an ethical limit on the language of projection. Treating another person as a perspective within one’s own synthesis can obscure their capacity to contest the synthesis. Plurality requires more than preserving a representation of disagreement; it requires recognizing that the standards of representation may themselves become the object of dispute.
The proposed discipline must therefore resist a universal metric of understanding. Mechanistic adequacy, interpretive articulation, evidential justification, and responsible acknowledgment are distinct achievements. Their relations are a subject for research, not an inconvenience to be removed. An economical explanation can fail ethically or semantically; a compelling interpretation can fail causally. Preserving both possibilities makes criticism more exact.
9. Historical Constitution and the Work of Translation
Kim Yisoon’s (2010) abstract describes a shift from established representational and expressive concerns toward materiality across different practices. It attributes this orientation to historical encounters, especially the influence of Ufan Lee and Mono-ha, rather than to an isolated internal necessity. Similar conceptual commitments need not yield identical forms. Kwon’s (2014) critical account complicates any assumption that the resulting vocabulary expresses a culturally pure or institutionally innocent philosophy.
Kim Jung Hee’s (2020) fuller indexed abstract positions monochrome comparison through Merleau-Ponty and an East Asian understanding of phenomenology. It identifies phenomenological fields, gesture, and infinity, and resists an exclusively minimalist classification. This supports recognizing translation as part of the research problem. It does not establish a fully reconstructed contrast between the artists’ ontologies, nor does it license a homogeneous opposition between “Eastern” and “Western” thought.
The methodological extension is that concepts carry histories of use, conflict, and authorization. “Reduction,” “unity,” “relation,” and “immediacy” do not enter a new inquiry as neutral containers. Their meaning depends partly on the distinctions they were introduced to perform. Transfer can preserve those distinctions, alter them, or conceal their loss.
Technical compression and phenomenological reduction illustrate the problem. The first can concern retention of information under specified constraints. The second concerns an alteration in the philosophical treatment of assumptions and experience. Comparing them may be illuminating, but a shared word does not establish a shared operation. The transition between settings requires an argument identifying what survives and what changes.
A useful discipline of translation would record a concept’s source problem, its original contrast, its role in the receiving inquiry, and the evidence needed to justify the transfer. These requirements do not prohibit invention. They make invention recognizable as invention rather than as an authority borrowed from elsewhere.
Historical explanation also has limits. Showing that a claim acquired prestige through institutions does not automatically show that it is false. Conversely, articulating a philosophically coherent interpretation does not erase the institutions that helped authorize it. The relationship between conceptual validity and historical formation is therefore another irreducible tension. The task is to investigate their interaction without turning either into a universal explanation of the other.
10. Holographic Projection and Three Kinds of Interference
The holographic proposal can now be formulated with greater precision. It names a way of working across multiple projections that disclose different relations within an inquiry. “Projection” is used here in an explicitly extended philosophical sense: an organized mode of access that makes some differences salient and leaves others unavailable. Computational projection retains its mathematical meaning in the technical sources; the philosophical extension does not assert identity with that operation or with optical holography.
The model is useful only if it avoids promising an exhaustive totality. Different accounts may not be partial views of one already constituted object. A change in explanatory organization may change what the inquiry recognizes as its object. A question about mechanism, one about historical authority, and one about acknowledgment cannot always be combined by adding detail to a common picture.
Three meanings of interference must therefore remain distinct. Representational interference is overlap that impairs discrimination in an encoding, as studied in the restricted models of Elhage et al. (2022). Interpretive interference occurs when one framework makes another’s assumptions difficult to sustain. Transformative interference occurs when that disturbance contributes to an articulated revision of a concept, procedure, or criterion. Only the first is an empirical mechanism established by the cited superposition study. The latter two are proposals of this paper.
Interference is not inherently creative. A collision of descriptions can produce confusion, a category mistake, a sharper disagreement, or a useful revision. Nor is compatibility always desirable: premature reconciliation can conceal the issue that made the encounter worth pursuing. The value of a comparison depends on what becomes distinguishable and what new work becomes possible.
The encounter between compression and phenomenological reduction offers a modest demonstration. An initial comparison groups them as ways of removing something. Closer examination discovers that they do not remove the same kind of thing or operate under the same criterion. The useful result is a new distinction between economy within an accepted organization and criticism of the assumptions that establish that organization. The comparison succeeds by revising its initial similarity.
A second demonstration concerns recurrence. Juxtaposing predictive induction with historical interpretations of repetition does not reveal a universal repetitive essence. It makes possible a contrast between exploiting a regularity, reproducing an interpretive practice, and changing the criteria under which recurrence counts as meaningful. The intellectual gain consists in separating operations previously covered by one word.
These demonstrations are conceptual, not experimental confirmations of a general creativity mechanism. They establish only that controlled comparison can yield articulable distinctions. Stronger claims would require sustained case studies showing that the revised distinctions improve interpretation, explanation, or intervention beyond what the original frameworks could achieve separately.
11. A Research Program in Constrained Projection
The emerging research program would study transformations of fields through constrained projection and interference. A field, in this proposal, is an organization of distinctions, relations, possibilities, and standards of relevance. It is not assumed to be a literal physical field, a neural representation, or a unified metaphysical substrate. Its provisional unity comes from the problem under investigation.
Constraints include limited representational resources, inherited categories, institutional authority, embodied position, temporal organization, and criteria of justification. These constraints do not belong to one explanatory level. Their interaction matters precisely because removing or changing one can redistribute the work performed by others.
The program would begin by reconstructing each account in its own terms, identifying what it preserves, what it excludes, and how it warrants its claims. It would then locate an intersection at which those accounts answer related questions differently. Selective suspension or translation would test the dependence of each formulation on its framing assumptions. The outcome would be assessed by whether a revised account enables a defensible distinction, improves an explanation, or clarifies an unresolved incompatibility.
This process needs stopping conditions. If comparison produces only shared vocabulary, the proposed relation has not yet earned explanatory status. If a transfer destroys the original concept’s discriminating function, it should be revised or abandoned. If two accounts answer different questions adequately, their coexistence may be the appropriate result. Integration is not always a higher achievement than a well-established limit.
The program’s six continuing tensions are economy and differentiation; representation and capacity; recurrence and transformation; situated perspective and shared reality; mechanism and acknowledgment; and abstraction and historical formation. No tension supplies the foundation of every other. Together, they identify several ways an inquiry can become more capable while also identifying what that improvement leaves unresolved.
Minimalist philosophy contributes a disciplined sensitivity to dependency: what remains operative when familiar determinations are weakened, and what new organization becomes possible when they are restored differently. AI research contributes specific mechanisms, controlled constructions, and distinctions between observed behavior and implementation. Historical and phenomenological scholarship make the constitution of relevance, the provenance of concepts, and the significance of response unavoidable. Their relationship is a research practice of reciprocal limitation and conceptual invention.
12. Conclusion
Understanding cannot be measured by the amount removed from a description, the number of perspectives included, or the breadth of a concept’s application. It can increase through selective loss, more explicit differentiation, a new operational relation, a revised frame, or an acknowledgment that a prior explanation answered the wrong question. These achievements sometimes reinforce one another and sometimes conflict.
The philosophical encounter developed here therefore preserves the plurality of its sources. Compact representation does not guarantee interpretability. Computational relation does not establish lived perspective. Repetition does not determine whether an organization changes. Historical formation does not settle validity. Mechanistic explanation does not exhaust meaning or responsibility. Recognizing these limits makes synthesis more demanding and more productive.
The proposed study of constrained projection and interference names that demand. Its object is the transformation of organizations of understanding, including transformations of what an inquiry can recognize as relevant. Its holographic dimension lies in sustained passage among nonexhaustive modes of access; its minimalist dimension lies in selective intervention into their dependencies. Novelty arises as a possibility when those encounters lead to a defensible reorganization. It remains an achievement to be demonstrated, rather than a property guaranteed by overlap.
Bibliography
Author–date references. Abstract-only sources are identified to preserve the evidential limits of this paper. Research preprints are distinguished from journal and conference publications.
Akyürek, Ekin, Dale Schuurmans, Jacob Andreas, Tengyu Ma, and Denny Zhou. 2023. “What Learning Algorithm Is In-Context Learning? Investigations with Linear Models.” International Conference on Learning Representations. Conference record. Open preprint, first posted 2022.
Bengio, Yoshua, Aaron Courville, and Pascal Vincent. 2013. “Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives.” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 35 (8): 1798–1828. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50.
Boardman, Alan. 2019. “Carbon Monochrome: Manuel DeLanda and the Nonorganic Life of Affect.” Open Arts Journal 7: 59–70. https://doi.org/10.5456/issn.2050-3679/2019s04.
Dahl, Espen. 2012. “Receiving Newman: Formalism, Minimalism, and Their Philosophical Preconditions.” The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 23 (42): 50–68. https://doi.org/10.7146/nja.v23i42.5875. Year follows the journal’s publication record.
Elhage, Nelson, Tristan Hume, Catherine Olsson, Nicholas Schiefer, Tom Henighan, Shauna Kravec, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Robert Lasenby, Dawn Drain, Carol Chen, Roger Grosse, Sam McCandlish, Jared Kaplan, Dario Amodei, Martin Wattenberg, and Christopher Olah. 2022. “Toy Models of Superposition.” Transformer Circuits Thread. Research preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10652.
Fielding, Helen A. 2011. “Multiple Moving Perceptions of the Real: Arendt, Merleau-Ponty, and Truitt.” Hypatia 26 (3): 518–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01191.x. Abstract consulted.
Kim, Jung Hee. 2020. “Comparative Study on U-fan Lee and Robert Ryman’s Monochrome Paintings.” The Eastern Art 47: 181–209. https://doi.org/10.19078/ea.2020.47.7. Indexed abstract consulted; some databases append the subtitle “Through Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology and Eastern Understanding of Phenomenology.”
Kim, Yisoon. 2010. “Korean Abstract Art and Materiality in the 1970’s and 1980’s” [1970~80년대 한국 추상미술과 물성(materiality)]. Korean Bulletin of Art History [미술사학보] 35: 139–170. https://doi.org/10.15819/rah.2010..35.139. English abstract consulted.
Kwon, Young-jin. 2014. “The Korean Monotone Painting of the 1970s: Methodology of Indefinitely Repetitive Actions” [1970년대 한국 단색조 회화: 무한 반복적 신체 행위의 회화 방법론]. Journal of History of Modern Art 36: 37–64. https://doi.org/10.17057/kahoma.2014..36.002. English abstract consulted.
Olsson, Catherine, Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Nicholas Joseph, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Scott Johnston, Andy Jones, Jackson Kernion, Liane Lovitt, Kamal Ndousse, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, and Chris Olah. 2022. “In-Context Learning and Induction Heads.” Transformer Circuits Thread. Research preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.11895.
Saxe, Andrew M., Yamini Bansal, Joel Dapello, Madhu Advani, Artemy Kolchinsky, Brendan D. Tracey, and David D. Cox. 2018. “On the Information Bottleneck Theory of Deep Learning.” International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ry_WPG-A-. The 2018 conference version is the work cited here; an updated journal version appeared in 2019.
Van Sorge, Lisa. 2025. “Painting as an Embodied Act of Framing: Toward a Phenomenological Aesthetics with Merleau-Ponty and Derrida.” Continental Philosophy Review 58 (3): 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-025-09694-2.
Vaswani, Ashish, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. “Attention Is All You Need.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30. Proceedings record.